- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:02:47 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Norman Walsh wrote: > / Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say: > | A bit confusing when we have <p:pipe step="..." source="..." />. We > | use 'source' as a generic term for something you can read documents > | from, so that might become confusing. What about p:resource? > > Uhm. As Henry suggested and Mohamed pointed out, what we have is > > <p:pipe > step = NCName > port = NCName /> > > We used to have "source", I think, back when we had attributes and the > attribute value was structured: source="step!port". Sorry, my brain's auto-update function must be malfunctioning. > So in light of that, does p:source work? As far as I'm concerned, only if we change all the rest of the uses of source in the spec and the language. For example, <p:iteration-source>, <p:viewport-source>, the use of port="source", the use of 'source' as a generic term for the port from which a document sequence is piped, and so on... See, for example, 3.3 Associating Documents with Ports: [Definition: A binding associates an input or output port with some data source.] A document or a sequence of documents can be bound to a port in four ways: **by source**, by URI, by providing it inline, or explicitly empty. In fact, our use of 'source' is muddled generally, but I don't see that as a reason to add to the confusion! Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2007 13:02:54 UTC